Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort

View Poll Results: Should sexual orientation be restricted for military service members?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Sexual Orientation should be a consideration.

    4 12.50%
  • No, Sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

    28 87.50%
Results 1 to 30 of 102

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
    In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable."
    Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?

    Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
    "This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual."
    I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I said 41 Minutes Ago in message #66
    United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).
    (evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?


    I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.
    As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.

  4. #4
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
    As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.
    Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can agree with that. Hell yeah I can agree with that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top